Conference noted::sf

As far as I know, it's due to be released on December 7th, same day as 2010.

It's director/screenplay-writer is David Lynch, who is famous for his cult
film ERASERHEAD and, more prominently, THE ELEPHANT MAN. Frank Herbert was
on the set a lot during production and is reported to be very pleased with
the production.

Cast? Oh, God! Let's see... oh, I think I have the latest CINEFANTASTIQUE
here at work (there seems to be some controversy about the veracity of this
magazine, but I've been reading it for years and think it's a very good
magazine; I recommend it to anyone seriously interested in sf films. This
latest issue has 32 pages worth of text and photos from the DUNE production).

In no particular order:

Paul Atreides:	Kyle MacLachlan		Chani:	Sean Young
Duke Leto:	Jurgen Prochnow		Alia:	Alicia Roanne Witt	
Thufir Hawat:	Freddie Jones		Dr. Yueh:   Dean Stockwell
Shadout Mapes:	Linda Hunt		Dr. Kynes:  Max Von Sydow
Baron Harkonnen:  Kenneth McMillan	Feyd Rautha:   Sting
Beast Rabban:  Paul Smith		Jamis:	Judd Owen
Lady Jessica:	Francesca Annis		Irulan:	Virginia Madsen
Gurney Halleck:	Patrick Stewart		Emperor:  Jose Ferrer

I can't seem to find a credit for Duncan Idaho or arrrrggggghhhhh!!
I forget his name -- the leader of Sietch Tabr. Oh, well. Or the
Reverend Mother, for that matter.

--- jerry

		Thanks a million I just bought the magazine
	thanks again.

brian

Jerry, the person you couldn't remember, who led Siech Tabr is Stilgar.

KMcC

 -.0

 I'm surprised you heard about it in 82. When I was stationed in England 
with the air force I picked up a copy of Dune to read and across the cover
was "Soon to be a major motion picture". Not much you'd say, except this was
back in 78! It's ABOUT time is more appropriate.

The reason for that is that there have been a few attempts to film DUNE.
The one referred to on that British paperback was probably the Alejandro
Jodorowsky version. Unfortunately, until the cuurent job, none of the
previous attempts ever got past pre-production (if they got that far).

There was a paperback that appeared here in 1970 by Roger Dixon called
NOAH II that proclaimed "Soon to be a Major Motion Picture" on the cover.

I'm still waiting.

--- jerry

The Reverend Mother (aka the Emperors Truth Sayer) is played by Sian Phillips.
If anyone remembers the BBC/Masterpiece Theater production "I, Claudius", she
played Livia.

I have high hopes for this one.  First, Herbert seems to like it, and second,
the casting shows thought and an attempt to get the right person for the part.
I am especially thinking of Sting as Feyd Rautha, and Sian Phillips as the
Reverend Mother.  In publicity stills, the other people also seem to be the
way I thought of them.  

The only bummer is the new device that seems to have crept in to the story, 
which turns the Voice into a weapon which blows walls apart.  Oh, well.

								Ken Moreau

    I originally had high hopes for Dune until I reread the whole series.  I
just don't see how it can possibly come off with the same feelin.  So much
of the book deals with subtleties of voice and posture and the people who know
how to control these in themselves and recognize and manipulate them in others.
Without loads of "Thinking out loud" I don't see how we can possibly get all 
the information that we need.
     I'd love to be proved wrong!  In the meantime, I'm skeptical.

tlh

Another reason for the delay in releasing DUNE is that they could
not get the book condenced into a workable script.  Frank Herbert
made an attempt and the script was almost as long as the book.
They finally gave it to a proffesional (sp?)m script writter and
got it down to 110 pages.  Another reason for the delay was that no
one was willing to put up the cash that such an involved book would
require to be turned into a decent movie.  I understand that
Dino de Laurentis finally got either 30 or 60 million dollars
together to put the book on the screen.  Most of the above is 
second hand rumor from the Pacific Northwest Sci-Fi community.

Any additions, deletions or corrections would be appreciated!!!

					thanks,
					John M.

In the November OMNI there is a article that details some of the problems
that delayed DUNE for almost 20 years. Some of the things that might have
been included set design by Salvador Dali, Gloria Swanson as Reverend Mother,
and Orson Wells as Baron Harkonnen! Possible directors  were Ridley Scott
(Alien), Haskel Wexler (Medium Cool) and Alexander Jodorosky (El Topo).

According to the article, Scott's treatment would have emphasized an
incestuous relationship between Paul and his mother; Herbert "freaked out"
when presented with that!

Steve

DUNE

Well, like most everyone else, I went to see it. If you don't like spoilers,
and  are  one  of  the odd people in this forum who haven't seen it yet, and
plan to, don't read this!

It's not bad.

It's not too good, either.

On  a  scale  of  accuracy  to  a  book  of  colossal popularity and eternal
fan-following,  I'd  say it's quite a bit better than what Greystoke  did to
Tarzan; but it could have been improved substantially without too much work.

Necessarily,  and excusably, most of the subplots were left out. This is the
straight  main-line  action. There simply isn't time in a movie. Much of the
main  line  was  compressed. Very little was rearranged or severely modified
(until the end, anyway).

The  effects  are  good.  Except  they were a bit too much into blood for my
tastes.  The  acting was reasonably good, except for Paul and Feyd, who were
excellent,  and  the  Baron, who reminded me most of Hackman's Lex Luthor in
the  first  Superman  movie: he did all the requisite evil things, but never
really convinced me that his heart was in it.

There  were  minor  (not excusable, but overlook-able) changes. The Atreides
troops  (and  the  Fedaykin)  fought with Atreides-patented "wierding units"
which convert the fighter's voice into a sort of sonic beam, which can stun,
cut, cause-to-flame, break rock, etc. I watched in hopeless terror that they
would  use these at the end when Paul confronted the Rev. Mother and learned
to  "use his Voice as a weapon" -- luckily, they did not, and so I recommend
simply ignoring these minor perversions.

The  Baron wasn't fat enough, cultivated ugly facial infections, flew around
on  his  suspensors,  wallowed  in muck, and liked to pull a person's "heart
plug"  and  cuddle  as the person died. I didn't find him very impressive. I
wish his personality had been done better -- whether the fault is in acting,
writing,  or  directing, I couldn't say. He held up his end of the plot in a
satisfactory  manner, however, so he can be overlooked as well. In fact, for
those  purists  who have complained that the Baron flies, I should point out
that  he  does  in the book as well, if only momentarily as he dies (re-read
that section, if you doubt).

The  major  failing of the movie; the one totally inexcusable, unforgivable,
and  fatally damning failing, takes place at the very end. For after felling
Feyd  and cowing the Rev. Mother with his Voice, Paul decides that it's time
for  some  rain.  The  movie ends with the Freman troops yelling and dashing
about while getting drenched from above with some good heavy Ark weather.

	/dave

The film:  8 out of 10
Butenhof's review:  10 out of 10

Dave C.

I also saw DUNE over the weekend. Fortunately I went to the $2.50
matinee at Searstown, Leominster. I have read most of the DUNE series
and I think they blew it. They had beautiful artwork and spoiled it
bad "cut and paste" special effects. (I've seen better "Blue Light"
work on Star Trek TV shows - pioneers and done on a shoestring!)
Sting overacted as Feyd and gave me the impression he was a flaming
limp-wrist, not the spoiled brat he was in the book.

The pull the heart plug of the cute red haired slave was in BAD taste.
One look at Barron Harkonnen was enough to give us a sutiable impression.

I'll agree, it would have taken three to three and a half hours to do
justice to the book, they gave it a damn good try, but they fell short.

If this is the level of quality we can expect, I hope they wait before
doing my favorites like Stranger in a Strange Land, the Dragonrider series
or the Camber of Culdi/Deryni series.

<SET FLAME OFF>

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy, Fulfilling New Year

		Steven Wilson

	My 'review' is in BISON""::SYS$NOTES:MOVIES.

	But (in summary), I agree with ;-1.  Gorgeous to look at
but no banana. 

	Also, their attempt to communicate information via dialog
was terrible. It was like a movie where one person says 'Let's
go to the MacDonalds, you know, that fast-food restaurant that
specializes in hamburgers.' Unbelievable.

	What a shame.

						_karl

I too, found Dune interesting but a disapointment compared to the book.

The book tried to explain everything quite well.  There were reasons
why things happened.  In the movie, Paul is simply a magician.  He
can call rain, and I was really upset when he called the sandworms
(I could see a "here wormy, wormy!").

On the possitive side, I thought The Voice, and the mentat characters
were presented interestly.  Piter's chant while he drank the fluid was
imaginative.  They also seemed to bring off the feeling of old aristocrasy
in space rather well.

Sigh...

Ok, I've heard enough apologies for a real turkey. I saw Dune opening night
and over the following couple of weeks, my memories of good parts (there
were some?) faded and the memories of the real garbage kept getting stronger.
That's sort of the way fresh fish is when it's left around. Let's face it,
the director and producer (what a wounderful combination they were...)
messed up what could have been a very interesting movie with special effects,
heart plugs being pulled and lot's of battle scenes. I felt the same way
about that aborted cartoon of the Lord of the Rings that Bakshi (sp?)
messed up about 8 years ago. He LOVED the idea of the WAR of the ring and
missed its essence entirely. Dune crashed on the same shore. And for a
director to get in the way of the talent at his disposal was really almost
criminal. Only Jurgen Prochnow (Leto) delivered a good show. He didn't do
much but I felt the essential part of Leto. I'd follow him. The director
must've been out to lunch while they were shooting his parts.

I guess I feel so strongly about this because Dune is such a wonderful
conception. It's human at the same time that it's immense; mystic and
physical; tender and warlike; and all the other stuff. There are directors
and producers who can get that essence on the screen. And these jerks
blew it. Let's face it. If it weren't for science fiction lovers like
us who don't believe the reviews (it can't be THAT bad) and try to read
excuses into it, it would've closed in 2 days (like Heaven's Gate). We
were just silly enough to keep it around a bit longer.

Ok Gene and Roger, move over... (flame off)

	Jerry

	Roger, of Gene and Roger, rated "Dune" as the worst film of the year,
	only slightly behind "Smokey and the Bandit Part 9". I hate to say it,
	but I agree with him. This film stinks on ice.

	If you've read the book(s), you're naturally dismayed with the
	alterations and ommissions. If you haven't, the film is wholely
	incomprehensible. The movie looses either way.

	Sometimes my loyalty for a really good book carries into the film -
	I liked 2010, for example, but it was a stretch. But when it comes to
	Dune the Movie, my loyalty strains, then snaps. Throw it away, and
	try again, Hollywood. There's a good story in here trying to get out.

How do we reconcile all these bad reviews with Frank Herbert's glowing praise
of the movie? Has Herbert sold out or are we all missing something??

Just wondering...

-- Bill

From what the interviews with Herbert say, there seems to be (or have been)
about a 4-5 hour version of Dune. Possibly, Herbert feels that the long
version of the movie is an adequate representation of the novel -- he
may be seeing the shortened form and remembering the long.

Or, he's happy 'cos he's making a buck!

Nigel

Well, maybe maybe my taste isn't that good then, 'cause I liked it.  And Why 
must the movie be compared to the book?  Do you think that the majority of the 
people going to this movie will have read the book?  I doubt it.  So as a 
story unto itself, unrelated to anything else, it is a good film (in my 
opinion only, of course :-).

Or maybe its getting harder for people to truly suspend their disbelief.

 What would have been better for DUNE would have been to have it done as a
tv series. Something along the lines of Masterpiece Theater on PBS or
a mini-series like Thornbirds, V, The Sun also rises, etc...
 Actually  they could probably get away with a regular tv series, but
I'd rather they didn't.

Sure. But then you get the philosophy mixed up with laxative commercials.
And if you think the direction for V is anywhere near good enough to do
something like Dune (and make it at all better than the movie), guess again.
Of course, maybe we could get the Dr. Who producers to do it...

	Jerry

Finally, a good word for the movie!! I don't think anyone would argue with
the quality of the DUNE series as written by Frank Herbert, but I hardly 
know anyone else who's read the entire 4 novels.  I don't think GOD,
EMPEROR OF DUNE would make a very good movie, and if it were made on 
TV, it would be done in cute animation, like the LORD OF THE RINGS movie.
Retch.  

So let's assume the DUNE movie was watched mostly by people not entirely 
familiar with the original novel.  I've found most of them understood
most of the movie, and others were grossed out.  I had the same reaction,
because they changed some major concepts from the book, and they left
a lot of things out.  But I was impressed with what they were able to
accomplish in bringing the scene to life.  I think the overall look of
the universe came through the movie, and that's a rare quality of
Frank Herbert's novels.  I think the Star Wars series has lacked that
rich background and consistency.

					>Mary

    This is late, as are most of my contributions, but what the heck.
    I saw the DUNE movie and hated it.  As was said earlier, it failed
    to represent the book.  And, as a movie on its own, it was pretentious,
    over-acted, and under-explained.
    
    The book is about high emotion, granted.  But it is also about what
    human beings can accomplish under great discipline.  If you read
    through the books, you will find that almost every time a major
    character feels a profound emotion, they sternly remind themselves
    not to give into it, not to let it do their thinking for them. 
    I saw no trace of this in the movie.  Every emotion was instantly
    expressed (OVERexpressed) and there was MENTION made of discipline,
    but little DISPLAY of it.
    
    Another problem was timing.  There was a lot of information that
    should have been conveyed.  They could have conveyed more of it
    if they had not wasted time drooling over the special effects and
    exhibiting in detail how revolting the Harkonnens are in their personal
    habits and amusements.  (It is important to realize the Harkonnens
    are vile, but Machiavellian scheming would have been more to the
    point than simple grossness.)
    
    Re .12  "I don't think anyone would argue with the quality of the
    DUNE series."  I would.  The first one was very good, being built
    on a solid foundation of hero myth.  The second and third ones cured
    me of reading the series.  Herbert ran out of myth.  The seams in
    the made-up world began to show.  NOBODY was likable in "Children
    of Dune," the title roles least of all.  They paint a grim picture
    of superhuman intelligence -- so remote from human that they cannot
    communicate with us, they can only manipulate us.  The intrigues
    were merely tangled, not "intriguing."  The mystical vaguenesses
    remain vague or get vaguer without getting more interesting.
    
    All in all, there should have been one novel and an end to it.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

An Orion Films guy at Boskone said that the four hour version of Dune 
was great, and that it was butchered in the US version.  Could well 
be true; there seemed to be a lot of loose plot ends and undeveloped 
characters.   So would the long version ever be released?  No, he 
said, the studio had destroyed the negative (!!!).  It could be 
reconstructed from existing prints, but that would take a lot of 
money and time.  It cost over a million to add the extra 15 minutes to the Star 
Trek video cassette version.
/jlr

    I keep hearing or reading rumours about a 6 hour TV mini-series. 

     mk

        If I remember correctly, the Orion films representative
        estimated something on the order of $10M to recreate the
        lost Dune footage.  While the negatives of the final print
        are gone, the junk pieces used in editing are apparently
        still around... but would have to be re-edited and printed.
        
        Since $10M is a reasonable cost for a whole new movie (didn't
        he say that the total cost for Dune was something on the
        order of $100M?), and given the generally poor reaction to
        the first release, I doubt anyone would put up $10M for a
        new release (however much better it "might" be).
        
        	/dave

    
    Does anyone know if the full version of DUNE (Frank Herbert) has been
    released. If so where can i get a copy.
    

    No, it hasn't. It's only available on broadcast television.
    
    --- jerry

    
    After three years is it still only available on broadcast television?
    
    And has it been seen lately on said medium?
    
    Anyone...? Anyone...?
    
    Scott
    

I always thought this four hour version of Dune was a myth.  As one noter posted
a 6 HOUR MINI-SERIES?!?

And no I haven't seen it due to be on broadcast TV.

Shane